1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.

There were some great responses, but no argument is as strong as the argument for life. The right to life is a major issue for most Christians, but at the same time we forget about the lives of those effected by our foreign policies. Our actions around the world have caused countless needless deaths that did not contribute to our national defense. Our troops are getting killed by the thousands and wounded or maimed by the tens of thousands. If you believe in life then you should support Dr. Paul's foreign policy that would end so much bloodshed around the world. The right to life issue also comes up in regards to Roe v. Wade. While others are arguing for a Constitutional Amendment, Dr. Paul actually understands the Constitution and he understands that the jurisdiction of the courts are determined by legislation, so just passing a law limiting the scope of the court could effectively repeal Roe v. Wade without a Constitutional Amendment. By getting the Federal Courts out of the picture, instead of the states having to agree on the same plan, each state could put prohibitions on abortions as the People of the each state see fit.

This all related to the original question of the role of the federal government in states rights. The question isn't legalizing prostitution, gay marriage, or medical marijuana, there are parts of the country that have already done this, it is a question of the right of the federal government to intimidate, harass, and arrest people who are following the laws of their state. Do we want to continue to arrest cancer patients for smoking medical marijuana? Following the Constitution and the 10th Amendment are not endorsing nor promoting sin, but it is giving you a greater voice in government while giving you the freedom to enjoy and promote your traditions. If Ron Paul is elected and he passes this legislation concerning abortion, you will have the opportunity to pass legislation in your state to protect life.

Um. Davy Crockett, at this point I have to ask if you are intentionally alienating Christians from Ron Paul, or do you just not know any better that teling people their entire universe is based on lies and deception might be considered offensive.

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Italian scientist and philosopher

I merely pointed out that the freedoms that we enjoy in Western civilization does not come from the Reformation as someone in this thread erroneously stated, but instead the Age of Enlightenment and gave several quotes from Voltaire and several Founding Fathers of America, several of whom were Deists, not Christians.

Besides the Federal Reserve, nothing is destroying America more then basing our foreign policy on Religious Right's myth that we must protect "God's chosen people". We have put our nation in perpetual debt fighting useless wars over the last twenty years, not to promote democracy, but as mercenaries for the state of Israel all because we have allowed religious zealots to frame the debate through the lens of their Bible instead of what is in America's best interests.

Hardly anyone is paying attention to the fact that just in the last six years, those checking the "no preference" box on religious surveys has doubled, from around 10% to 20%. And if we add those who are Christian in name only, the percentage is much higher. One researcher on religious trends in America went as far as to state that 7 in 10 young Americans no longer care for religion.

The Religious Right high jacked the Republican party back in the early 1980s, and thankfully their days are numbered now. If it wasn't for Ron Paul running a campaign based on reality instead of the Bible, the Republican party would be in more trouble then they are right now.

Another angle to take. Is gluttony considered sinful? If your friend says yes:

Ezekiel 16
48*As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49*Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50*She was proud and committed detestable sins, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

Matthew 11
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ’ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Then ask them if we should make buffets illegal. Or put everyone on a 2500 calorie diet. Lock up fat people.

It is my experience growing up in a small town in Ky that was dry and didn't sell alcohol and raised in a fundamentalistic church, that everyone was pharasaical about alcohol but they were mostly fat and gluttonous.

Thank you, that is so true. If we go by his logic, then where does it stop? There are so many things that are sins, but from our society's perspective are just normal, everyday things. (I don't think I need to write a list here, but most of you know what I mean.) He really reminds me of the Pharisees who were so legalistic, to the point of absurdity and missing the point entirely.... and they were the ones who Jesus had the MOST criticism for, because they only cared about what everyone else did, not realizing that inside they were prideful and hateful and hypocritical. Thanks for bringing that up.

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

1. Paul would not legalize drugs. He would decriminalize them at the federal level. Those are two very different things.

All 50 states have drug laws, right now, and they still would, after President Paul decriminalized them at the federal level. Paul decriminalizing drugs at the federal level would get the federal government out of it and leave the regulation and prosecution of drugs up to the states. If some of those states wanted to say, allow MDs to prescribe medical marijuana to their cancer patients to ease their pain, it would be within their purview to do so without interference by the federal government.

2. It isn't accurate to say that Paul would leave it to the states to decide about abortion. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. What this would do is make it murder if someone took that life. Where the states come in, is that it would be up to them to prosecute and punish said murder, as they do most every other murder case under the sun.

Thanks so much, excellent post. I feel much more prepared now to deal with this guy and others like him, who completely misunderstand RP's position. No wonder they like Santorum, he is just as much an authoritarian as my pharisee-like friend. I feel like this is an important topic to discuss with social conservatives, and I think there is a strong need for us believing liberty-minded people to educate and inform those who may have good intentions but are misguided. Btw, liberals are the same way, ironically. They want to enforce THEIR ideas about what is right or wrong on everyone else...as much as the other side does. We need to get both sides to see what they are doing, and point them towards RP's view of following the constitution.

Originally Posted by Liberty74

First, libertarians are the most conservative. Your friend is not conservative but maybe a right wing fascist to be honest here. A right wing fascist is some who uses government to impose their views on everyone else i.e. big government knows best ideology. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

I don't support drug use or prostitution but that doesn't mean I have a right to say "hey, you can't have this or that." As long as they aren't harming anyone, what's it to your friend?

Does your friend want the government to come in and tell him how to live his life and what to believe? Big government can work both ways and it's best that it's small protecting everyone's freedoms to live best how they see fit as long as they aren't harming another. Once you do, the government has a role to step in to protect your private property, yourself.

Thank you. That pretty much sums it up. Now I just need to get my thoughts together and write an article about this, to share with all those I know who have personal values that are traditional, but profess to believe in liberty. And explain to them that RP's position is correct, both constitutionally and from a Christian perspective, imo.

Originally Posted by Davy Crockett

Concentrate on reaching the others, and do not waste too much time on those who are closed minded. If I remember correctly, you mentioned that you only know this person on-line and not in person, if this is correct, let me point out that the Internet is the perfect medium for liars. There are going to be some who are going to try to waste your time on them knowing that you will be more effective if you moved on instead.

Yeah, I haven't been spending as much time dealing with him lately on facebook. But I hope that eventually he does realize he's being an authoritarian, and his position actually goes against the faith he professes to believe in, on a number of levels.

Originally Posted by tod evans

Sounds like your "friend" is buying into media hype.

Dr. Paul is quite likely the most moral and principled person running for president. Please ask your "friend" to focus on Rons personal beliefs and actions over the years, once he gets an idea of who the man is only then try to understand how he interprets the constution.

That's what I try to do, just point them to his actual positions and his consistent record, and tell them to stop believing the lies put out by the establishment/MSM who just want to bring him down.

Thanks for all of your comments, you all! This thread has been very helpful.

Last edited by lilymc; 01-08-2012 at 05:13 PM.

“We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughter-houses daily with screams of pain and fear.”

Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.

“We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughter-houses daily with screams of pain and fear.”

It got even worse than that. I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Oh my gosh.... I am FUMING right now. I have another online friend, who has almost the exact same views as the one I have been debating. He also hates Ron Paul with a passion, mainly because of his foreign policy.

So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's) with a comment that he is one of the only candidates who served in the military, unlike the others who never did but easily send our young men and women off to war. I know that comment probably bothered my friend, because he is strongly for the wars, but he never served in the military.

Then he commented on the facebook photo, and I can't believe what I read. Here's the conversation:

I'm not the one supporting numerous undeclared, imperialistic wars. And I'm not the one who expressed a lack of concern that thousands of innocent civilians have died. I think you should be more concerned about your own spiritual condition, before telling me that I'm an "idolater" for supporting a presidential candidate. *roll eyes*
6 minutes ago · Like

get behind me satan
5 minutes ago · Like

Ok, now I know you need help. I'm satanic for supporting Ron Paul now? Now I've heard it all! lol (I shouldn't laugh, because that is actually very sad.)
4 minutes ago · Like

You're satanic for being a judgmental, condescending idolater. You better pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness now.
3 minutes ago · Like

YOu are a liar. Repent or burn. I am dead serious.
about a minute ago · Like

Ok, let me get this straight. I post a photo. *You* call me an "idolater". And that is not judgmental? But when I defend myself, I'm judgmental, even though what I said was true? Ok, got it.

Originally Posted by lilymc

It got even worse than that. A lot worse. I'm still in disbelief.... and I don't know what to do, because I have some facebook friends who I don't want reading all that crap.

My sister told me to just delete the photo. I said some things that probably made him even more angry, so I probably should've just ignored him or tried to calm the conversation down, but he really made me mad, and I responded.

I wish some of you could reply. If you go to Ron Paul's facebook page, you will see the photo there because I tagged Ron Paul, and it is public. I'll get the link.

Ok, I hate to resurrect this thread, especially after that embarrassing facebook exchange I posted (which is actually from another neocon guy I know, not the one mentioned in the OP)

But I have to ask a question, and I didn't want to create a new thread just for this question.

The first guy is now saying (yelling, ranting) a bunch of things on FR about Ron Paul that sound as horrible as it gets, and I wanted to find out what was a lie/distortion/half-truth and what was actually true.

All I see are a bunch of poorly constructed Straw man and guilt by association fallacies. Lol, Was that guy seriously demanding you repent…you cant really have a rational debate of substance with someone like that. So he went sifting through posts on the DP that are four years old? He’s just grasping for any potential straws- and making an ass of himself in the process. The Video you posted was set as private, but honestly I wouldn’t even bother wasting time with that guy.

Paul has no extreme ideas about anything... He is the least extreme candidate running... Constitution... you have a right to live, you have a right to protect your family, you have a right to choose your own lifestyle, you have a right to reap what you sow, you have a right to feed your family, you have a right to defend your family.

How is that extreme? The other candidates are extreme... they take your money, and use it to fund their lobbyists... who then in turn, return the money to their campaigns.. basically stealing taxpayer dollars to fund their own campaigns... the rest they use to go murder people around the globe.. so every dollar you pay in taxes, might be the same dollars used to murder innocent women and children... at the same time they are supplying arms to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and earning billions in their personal bank accounts for dealing drugs. They want to take your guns away, so the cartels and american military are the only arms in Ameria... you think Ron Paul is extreme? Someone better wake up, and wake up fast !!

All I see are a bunch of poorly constructed Straw man and guilt by association fallacies. Lol, Was that guy seriously demanding you repent…you cant really have a rational debate of substance with someone like that. So he went sifting through posts on the DP that are four years old? He’s just grasping for any potential straws- and making an ass of himself in the process. The Video you posted was set as private, but honestly I wouldn’t even bother wasting time with that guy.

Well, I don't want to deal with him anymore, but he has been posting to me on FR and if I don't respond to his "NAMBLA" accusation, it might make him think that he is right or that I have no reply. Lies like that (which other people can read, since it's a big site) can turn many people away, so I feel a responsibility to correct them and refute the smears. But I wasn't clear on RP's position on the age of consent thing... or how his latest smear even originated.

As for the repent thing... that was another guy (who has the same exact views) and yes, he was serious. He seems to have gone off the deep end, but I shouldn't have responded to him in anger, I should've either ignored him or replied with a different tone. Anyway, I guess to him I'm like the 'enemy' now, and he seems to think I've gone over to the "dark side." haha Thanks moonshine.

Originally Posted by Dianne

Paul has no extreme ideas about anything... He is the least extreme candidate running... Constitution... you have a right to live, you have a right to protect your family, you have a right to choose your own lifestyle, you have a right to reap what you sow, you have a right to feed your family, you have a right to defend your family.

How is that extreme? The other candidates are extreme... they take your money, and use it to fund their lobbyists... who then in turn, return the money to their campaigns.. basically stealing taxpayer dollars to fund their own campaigns... the rest they use to go murder people around the globe.. so every dollar you pay in taxes, might be the same dollars used to murder innocent women and children... at the same time they are supplying arms to the Mexican Drug Cartels, and earning billions in their personal bank accounts for dealing drugs. They want to take your guns away, so the cartels and american military are the only arms in Ameria... you think Ron Paul is extreme? Someone better wake up, and wake up fast !!

I agree with you, but I'm talking about what strong social conservatives think.... they think that he wants to legalize even hard drugs, so from their perspective, it's 'extreme' to support the legalization of drugs like heroin, etc.

Originally Posted by Icymudpuppy

Heh, I love that quote. Thanks.

Last edited by lilymc; 01-11-2012 at 11:31 PM.

“We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughter-houses daily with screams of pain and fear.”

Just because one defends someone's freedom of choice doesn't mean they endorse their choices.

The right to one's freedom of religion is preserved by this same principle of individual liberty.

"Liberty... is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free." []
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson

Free agency is a gift from our Creator, our Constituion and the liberty it stands for defends that gift.

...So I post a photo on my facebook wall (the one of Ron and Rand in the 60's)

Your friends are not Christians.

There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

I just want to say thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I've been trying to win over my family for 4 years, and have made no progress. With the some of the wonderful posts here, and Voddie Bauchman's "Why Ron Paul," I've made another attempt to appeal to their Christianity. If this doesn't work, I don't think there's anything more that I could do to persuade them. Let's hope they get it after this.

Easy: lean to a "State's Rights" argument. Tell them that Ron Paul simply believes that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in spending all of this money on the War on Drugs, etc. - it should be left up to the States to decide.

Yes, Ron Paul honestly believes that most if not all drugs should be legal, and I don't necessarily agree with that completely (having known someone killed in a car accident by a high driver), but from his position as President, he would simply allow the States to decide what they want for their residents, and not take tax dollars from folks to run a Federal bureaucracy that is inept and wasteful.

When making that argument, keep in mind that there are generations of people out there who have been taught that States' rights don't exist, and that issue was "settled" by the Civil War. Lots of propaganda out there to push back against.

Originally Posted by Torchbearer

what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.

Two words: States' rights. If you don't like what your state makes legal, move.

'I do verily believe that..a single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth.' --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

'An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot.'

I think Dr. Paul said it best himself in the last debate when he said making laws will not help morality in this country.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask another man to live for mine." - The Objectivist Oath, given by John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

I'd use some of Ron Paul's own words to describe these "extreme policies"

Supporting freedom of choice is not endorsement. That's like saying if you support the fourth amendment you're for pornography. It's ridiculous. It's really a matter of who regulates these substances. The most effective regulation comes from the individual, church, and family; not from any law.

...to a very, VERY socially conservative, legalistic Christian, who is convinced that I need to repent for supporting Ron Paul.

This is a guy who I've known online for many years and I don't think he will EVER support Ron Paul, but I still want to know how to best respond to his objections and accusations. His view is that anyone who supports drug legalization, legal prostitution, gay marriage, etc, "supports sin." And therefore, since I support Ron Paul, I "support sin."

The reason that it's hard for me to respond to this is because I have always considered myself more of a conservative than a libertarian. So I've never been 100% convinced that things like legalization of hard drugs or legal prostitution are good ideas. But I don't have to agree with a candidate on 100% of the issues, and I think our country is so far gone in the wrong direction, that we absolutely need a pro-liberty, small-government, strict constitutionalist like Ron Paul, or we are finished.

I think there are lots of conservative Christians who we could convince, but the issues I mentioned above are things that turn some people away.

So any advice on how to respond to those objections would be greatly appreciated!

PS - I'm sorry if there have been numerous other threads on this topic already. (I saw some similar ones but I figured I'd start a new thread)